The Evolving Landscape of Irregular Migration: A South African Case Study

Notwithstanding the high risks of South-North migrant routes, North-bound irregular migration now accounts for the majority of asylum applications, as many Africans seek legal avenues to work and live in the North. Apart from the South-North migration towards Europe – South-South movements have also spiked with South Africa hosting the highest number of immigrants in Africa. While its industrialized economy makes it an appealing destination – the extension of socio-economic rights to non-citizens also makes it a preferred choice for most e.g., only South Africa and six other SADC member states (in a regional grouping of 16 countries), has zero reservations on the right to work for asylum seekers. Consequently, irregular migrants from countries such as the DRC, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Somalia etc., not only cross multiple borders to reach South Africa, but on arrival, they often file questionable asylum claims (or illegally obtain legal documents), to be able to live/work in the country. Hence, while macro-level (underlying structural motivations) and meso-level (policy and intermediary motivations) are plausible drivers of irregular migration – other under-researched factors at the individual/familial level (micro-level motivations in pursuing better lives), have also influenced irregular migrants’ trajectory. In other words, while the initial drivers of irregular migration may be coercive, as irregular migrants move from one host country to another – their agency often increases with them making positive choices regarding migrant routes/final destinations etc. While this explains the increasingly complex nature of migration flows, this study problematizes irregular migrants increased agency in responding to a broader range of push and pull factors e.g., improved economic prospects and more welcoming immigration policies. It links this trend to (i) the high concentration of irregular migrants in popular host nations and the unequal burden of asylum seeker protection, and (ii) the challenges in counting irregular migrants and reconciling traditional distinctions between asylum seekers and economic migrants. This study also considers other implications of irregular migration, particularly how the increased agency of irregular migrants in pursuing their final destinations can lead to violations of legal migration frameworks on migration. These violations, which may include overstaying, working without permits, crossing borders without visas etc. – makes irregular migrants a more challenging population to manage/control for host countries. Hence, a complexity lens will be used to ask (i) How has the diversification of migration flows and increasing complexity of migration dynamics impacted asylum policymaking and implementation in South Africa? (ii) How have migration governance frameworks addressed the micro-level motivations of irregular migrants—such as socio-political, economic, and humanitarian factors—especially in the context of xenophobia and marginalization? Examining how these frameworks either facilitate or hinder irregular migrants’ goals is crucial, as ineffective governance can drive remigration and perpetuate irregular migration. Ultimately, this study underscores the need for adaptive governance that acknowledges the fluid nature of migration and incorporates the perspectives of affected migrants.